About your Search

20130123
20130123
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
. chris cillizza, the foreign policy, in many regards, has been run out of the white house, and perhaps even more so because mcdonagh, the deputy of national security director is going to be the next chief of staff. >> right. no reason to think that will change. andrea, look, we don't focus enough on foreign policy, but the challenges, we focus on the domestic challenges for barack obama, and as we talked about, his inaugural speech was very domestically focused. look, we just had elections in israel, john kerry not in the same place benjamin netanyahu is regarding a two-state solution, at least right now. there are huge challenges, iran, there are huge challenges in the foreign policy front that don't get talked about as much, but are clearly things that not only will be difficult for the president and his team to navigate, but will also have a significant say in how this president is viewed by history. >> and, by the way, we just got word that the white house is going to proceed with a nomination of general allen to be the nato supreme allied commander now that he's been cleared by th
was unfolding. >> right. well, there is the actual foreign policy piece, then there's the partisan ranker. maggie, before this began, we were looking at hillary clinton's approval ratings. 67% favorable, 26% unfavorable, 6% no opinion. we don't know if she's running for office in 2016, right? but certainly, some of this criticism, some of this questioning, is perhaps directing at poking some holes in the clintonian armor, if you will. >> perhaps. i would go there. no, i think that's absolutely right. i think the issue about benghazi, when it initially began, was a way at getting at obama through hillary clinton, right, during the campaign, but it then evolved into something else that was about her for exactly that purpose. if the idea today was to ding her up memorably going into 2016, i don't think that was accomplished. rand paul did what he was supposed to do, it will make his base happy. it will not sway any votes. if i saw correctly, 37% of republicans approve of her. for her, that is not terrible. i mean, she has always been a pretty polarizing figure. she is leaving state departmen
the neoconservative phase of the republican party as far as foreign policy goes. most republicans in the senate and the house, like the american people, are exhausted by 10, 11, 12 years of war. obviously, john mccain and lindsey graham are on the forefront and have shaped republican foreign policy for a few years. certainly john mccain has. he is in a shrinking minority. and it's shrinking very quickly. and i suspect you're going to see a return to the realism of colin powell of dr. brzezinski, of brent scowcroft, of george h.w. bush, of the republicans who helped us and democrats who helped us through that approach when the cold war. >> and this is the post-superpower era, where there has to be some pulling back, and david said it exactly right. >> i wouldn't say post-superpower. you're right, it's a new era. it's much more indirection in our application of power. the neocons are for direct use of power. this will have to be more indirect. >> and there may be surprises there, as always is the case. look at what happened with algeria and mali. >> dr. zbigniew brzezinski, dad, thanks for not wa
would like to have which is getting your input on the bigger issues of foreign policy. ultimately the security of our diplomats depends on the host country. this all a discussion about well, there might have been five security people on the ground, if only there was more funding or deployment, or this cable or that cable maybe there would be eight or nine security people on the ground which might have led to more protection or might have led to more casualties. in washington, the decision was made to provide well more than 16 security people to libya and nobody that i know in washington, dc, was involved in the issue of how many of those were in benghazi going with the ambassador or there in advance. the decision that all 16 weren't with him was a decision you cannot blame either political party or anyone in washington. ultimately, all we can have in our embassies is enough to keep off a militant attack for a few hours and after that if the host country doesn't come to a rescue it doesn't matter if we have three, six, 12, 16, or 36 armed guards and marines at the location. an aspe
on the bigger issues of foreign policy. ultimately the security of our diplomats depens on the host country. this is all a discussion about there might have been five security people on the ground if only there was more funning and deployment and that cable and this cable, there would have been eight or nine that might have led to more protection or more casualties. here in washington the decision was made to provide well more than 16 security people to libya. nobody that i know of in washington was involved in the issue of how many of those were in benghazi going with the ambassador or there in advance. the decision that all 16 weren't with him was a decision that you can't blame either political party or anyone in washington for. ultimately all we can have is enough to stave off a militant attack for a few hours and after that if the host country doesn't come to the rescue, it doesn't matter whether we have 3, 6, 12, 16, or 36 armed guards and marines at the location. one aspect of protecting our diplomats in the future is bringing to justice the criminal who is did this this time. we did
some key lines that might be a sign of what's to come in his second term foreign policy. let's listen to a bit of what the president said yesterday. >> we, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. our citizens seared by the memory of those we have lost know too well the price that is paid for liberty. the knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm, but we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well. we will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully, not because we are naive about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. >> that's what i like about president obama and one of the many reasons i like him, because of that. could that be an olive branch the president might extend to nations such as, let's say it, iran, and if so, will they respond in tehran? richard engel is
on counts issues, ensuring the diplomacy is an essential part of our country's foreign policy. and your tireless efforts to elevate women and girls' rights is without comparison. you have strengthened our state department, made it better today than when you arrived. as ranking member on the africa subcommittee, i am especially appreciative of the attention you've given to the 54 congratulations -- nations of africa. while aftercation ca may lose one -- while africa may lose one of its champions at the state department, i trust africa will not be far from your thoughts and will remain a top priority in your exueture -- in your future work. i also want to associate my comments with congressman sherman who said that it's unfortunate that this is the last time we will hear from you. so i want to focus my time on moving us forward and asking your advice. you made reference in your testimony about best value contracts. and you mentioned, i believe, several nations where best value contracts are not used. and in thinking about africa and the instability and a number of nations in northern afri
of qaddafi was one of the great successes of their foreign policy. this was the origin of the phrase, leading from behind in the overthrow of qaddafi, yet obviously you have to judge a policy by its aftermath as well as people have criticized the bush administration for what happened in iraq after the overthrow of saddam hussein. libya was not just another embassy. it was not iceland. it wasn't france. it was a very dangerous place, and the fact that the administration would tout libya as a success, even as our ambassador in libya was describing the descent into kay yos that the -- chaos the country was seeing. the growth of terrorist cells and training camps, nothing was being done to affect security but nothing was being done to recognize the failure and the risk to american interests more broadly being reflected by the chaos growing in libya. jon: the administration asserted that the deaths of our ambassador and others resulted from this protest over the online video. the secretary was asked about that today and she got pretty angry, said what does it matter why this thing started. your th
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)